“Video” is a problematic terminology in some respects, as it spans across two (or possibly more) quite disparate forms of media. The original meaning of the term, according to my computer’s little dictionary widget is “the system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting moving visual images on or from video tape” (New Oxford American Dictionary Widget, 2005). Whether or not this concept, in and of itself, encompasses more than one medium is an interesting point to investigate. Is television a different medium from VHS video? Were VHS and Betamax different kinds of the same medium, or different media altogether?
These questions aside, there exists an even deeper rift within the concept of “video”: analog vs. digital. Today, for the most part, the term video refers to the latter. DVD, Blu-Ray, cellphone AVIs, Flash and streaming MPEGs from the internet are some of the mutations of this format (again, different or the same kinds of media?). As many know, this new format is composed/reproduced/transcribed in a series of binary numbers readable & transmissible on certain kinds of electronic devices (computers, PDAs, etc.). As opposed to the physical, tangible “tape” or “film” (usually magnetic or emulsion-based) used in analog recording, digital media use an invisible, ephemeral code to record and reproduce information.
Digital video is one of many formats that comprise what has come to be known as “the new media.” Other formats that are often classed as new media include digital photography, video games, Web content, software, digital animation and virtual reality (Manovich, 2001). As one might imagine, this is a very diverse group of formats and systems to be explained under one umbrella term. However, new media is still an important concept for us, as much of the theoretical writing out there engages with all of new media rather that digital video alone. There has certainly never been an equally developed theoretical school of video (analog and/or digital) as there has been for film. Even the work I have read on new media has not been nearly as rich or inspiring as much of the history of film theory. Perhaps this is due to the relative “newness” of this form of representation. Or perhaps there is something inherent in the format itself that precludes beautiful or richly engaged theory (in my opinion, the new media has yet to produce much art that I find engaged, contemplative or beautiful either). These are questions to explore elsewhere, however.
Looking at the format of representation itself is important to us, as what a medium allows or disallows, symbolises or silences plays a big role in how people use it to self-represent. It would be necessary, at the outset, to decide if our use of the term “video” refers only to digital video or if it includes older, analog formats. If we assume that digital video is our principle focus, then exploring conceptualizations of the new media would be useful.
Lev Manovich (2001) is one of the key theorists in the field of new media. He provides an interesting perspective on the term by dispelling certain “myths” of what is unique to new media. Here are those myths:
So if new media is not these things, what is it? Manovich defines it through 5 principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding. Numerical representation, of course, refers to the binary digits used to store, reproduce and represent information. New media can thus be described mathematically. Modularity refers to the many disparate & discrete “samples” that make up a new media product. A web page has many independent parts that comprise the whole, and many of these parts (hyperlinks, Flash videos, text, images) can exist and function on their own. Automation in new media is the ability of the computer itself to create and manipulate the information without the direct influence of a human being. Automatic generation of 3D objects in animation, “artificial intelligence” of video game characters and autoformat in Microsoft Word are all examples of this. Variablity refers to the capacity of new media to be reproduced in different forms. This can be seen in automated updates of software or lossy compression of video for the Web. The ease new media allows for “re-mixing” might also be considered a user-generated form of variability. Finally, transcoding is the way in which human generated and consumed data are translated into computer generated and consumed data. All new media thus has a two-fold language, a two-fold consumption and production and these two languages and materials influence each other constantly. This final principle is one of the most interesting in terms of how the medium of new media might shape the messages of youth digital video.
Hopefully we can use this definition of new media as a means to investigate youth video projects done in digital format and/or for the web. Most importantly, we need to look at how the nature of new media, its modularity, automation, variability and transcoding, allow or disallow, encourage or discourage certain forms of representation. We have already begun to discuss how agency mandates, social messages and popular culture affect the ways in which young people construct their identities on (digi)camera. How does the camera, the website, the editing software itself influence this self-representation?
These questions aside, there exists an even deeper rift within the concept of “video”: analog vs. digital. Today, for the most part, the term video refers to the latter. DVD, Blu-Ray, cellphone AVIs, Flash and streaming MPEGs from the internet are some of the mutations of this format (again, different or the same kinds of media?). As many know, this new format is composed/reproduced/transcribed in a series of binary numbers readable & transmissible on certain kinds of electronic devices (computers, PDAs, etc.). As opposed to the physical, tangible “tape” or “film” (usually magnetic or emulsion-based) used in analog recording, digital media use an invisible, ephemeral code to record and reproduce information.
Digital video is one of many formats that comprise what has come to be known as “the new media.” Other formats that are often classed as new media include digital photography, video games, Web content, software, digital animation and virtual reality (Manovich, 2001). As one might imagine, this is a very diverse group of formats and systems to be explained under one umbrella term. However, new media is still an important concept for us, as much of the theoretical writing out there engages with all of new media rather that digital video alone. There has certainly never been an equally developed theoretical school of video (analog and/or digital) as there has been for film. Even the work I have read on new media has not been nearly as rich or inspiring as much of the history of film theory. Perhaps this is due to the relative “newness” of this form of representation. Or perhaps there is something inherent in the format itself that precludes beautiful or richly engaged theory (in my opinion, the new media has yet to produce much art that I find engaged, contemplative or beautiful either). These are questions to explore elsewhere, however.
Looking at the format of representation itself is important to us, as what a medium allows or disallows, symbolises or silences plays a big role in how people use it to self-represent. It would be necessary, at the outset, to decide if our use of the term “video” refers only to digital video or if it includes older, analog formats. If we assume that digital video is our principle focus, then exploring conceptualizations of the new media would be useful.
Lev Manovich (2001) is one of the key theorists in the field of new media. He provides an interesting perspective on the term by dispelling certain “myths” of what is unique to new media. Here are those myths:
- Analog media is continuous, new media is discrete
- One has random access to digital media, that is one can access any part of the information equally fast
- Digitization involves information loss (compression)
- Digital media can be copied endlessly without changing/ degrading
- New media allows for interaction of the user/viewer/consumer—interactivity.
- Analog film was also discrete, as motion pictures are broken up into 24ths of a second frames—they are not continuous
- Early forms of cinema, such as loops of successive images also had a random-access nature to them
- Photographic prints also have a limited amount of information available to the viewer, and the ever-increasing resolution of digital photos has surpassed these limits
- Compression of digital media is often necessary for its reproduction (on the Web, on an iPod, etc.) so copying frequently does entail information loss
- Many earlier forms of art, such as performance art, included the possibility of interactivity. Even paintings and films require the user/viewer’s contribution and interaction to make sense.
So if new media is not these things, what is it? Manovich defines it through 5 principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding. Numerical representation, of course, refers to the binary digits used to store, reproduce and represent information. New media can thus be described mathematically. Modularity refers to the many disparate & discrete “samples” that make up a new media product. A web page has many independent parts that comprise the whole, and many of these parts (hyperlinks, Flash videos, text, images) can exist and function on their own. Automation in new media is the ability of the computer itself to create and manipulate the information without the direct influence of a human being. Automatic generation of 3D objects in animation, “artificial intelligence” of video game characters and autoformat in Microsoft Word are all examples of this. Variablity refers to the capacity of new media to be reproduced in different forms. This can be seen in automated updates of software or lossy compression of video for the Web. The ease new media allows for “re-mixing” might also be considered a user-generated form of variability. Finally, transcoding is the way in which human generated and consumed data are translated into computer generated and consumed data. All new media thus has a two-fold language, a two-fold consumption and production and these two languages and materials influence each other constantly. This final principle is one of the most interesting in terms of how the medium of new media might shape the messages of youth digital video.
Hopefully we can use this definition of new media as a means to investigate youth video projects done in digital format and/or for the web. Most importantly, we need to look at how the nature of new media, its modularity, automation, variability and transcoding, allow or disallow, encourage or discourage certain forms of representation. We have already begun to discuss how agency mandates, social messages and popular culture affect the ways in which young people construct their identities on (digi)camera. How does the camera, the website, the editing software itself influence this self-representation?
Posts
